BF2S Forums How can we improve on representative democracy?

Meh. The idea of the electoral college is not messed up, the implementation is. Ideally the electoral college does not skew the results more than one or two percent.

Turquoise wrote:

One man should equal one vote.  It shouldn't be anymore complicated than that if we actually claim to believe in equality.  Anything less is undemocratic.

Would the small states have joined the union if their needs would be largely ignored?  These compromises exist(ed) for a reason.

Turquoise wrote:

One man should equal one vote.  It shouldn't be anymore complicated than that if we actually claim to believe in equality.  Anything less is undemocratic.

It's very undemocratic. It's also very realistic.

Republicanism is democracy with sacrifices made so it is actually feasible, sometimes you have to take what you can get. I don't necessarily think it is the best system in the world, but it is waaaaaay down in my list of priorities.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One man should equal one vote.  It shouldn't be anymore complicated than that if we actually claim to believe in equality.  Anything less is undemocratic.

It's very undemocratic. It's also very realistic.

Republicanism is democracy with sacrifices made so it is actually feasible, sometimes you have to take what you can get. I don't necessarily think it is the best system in the world, but it is waaaaaay down in my list of priorities.

I guess I've always been a radical when it comes to proportional representation.

I would be a bigger advocate if we had a higher voter turnout. The way I see it more than half the eligible voters don't even show up, so why bother worrying about a few percent...

Turquoise wrote:

..and it's now time to end them.  Times change, and so should the rules.

Indeed.  I'm sure you'll start drafting an amendment to eliminate the Senate?

Turquoise wrote:

lol...  I'm not gonna do shit, but you already knew that.  It's just more fun to debate in hypotheticals.

I'm an academic.  Of course I like hypotheticals!  :-D

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-05-29 21:42:11)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's very undemocratic. It's also very realistic.

Republicanism is democracy with sacrifices made so it is actually feasible, sometimes you have to take what you can get. I don't necessarily think it is the best system in the world, but it is waaaaaay down in my list of priorities.

I guess I've always been a radical when it comes to proportional representation.

I would be a bigger advocate if we had a higher voter turnout. The way I see it more than half the eligible voters don't even show up, so why bother worrying about a few percent...

have you ever thought about the possibility that voter tournout would be higher if the electoral college was removed and replaced with a more direct voting method ? The way I see it people are simply tired of voting, because they don't feel that their votes actually mean anything.
Give them back their voting power, and voter turnout will be higher.

As Turquoise has said, this isn't the 190th century any more. Maybe at the time the electoral college was created it seemed like a good idea, but haven't we moved on ?

The most important thing for any democracy ( apart from the political education of the electorate ) is to make sure that the votes that are cast actually mean anything. And to be honest, looking at the way presidential nominees are selected ( superdelegates ) and the general election ( electoral college can basically not be held accountable ) is conducted, is it any wonder that the average american may feel discouraged to vote at all ?
The possibility alone that a candidate who wins the popular vote may still not become president would make a lot of people think that the voting system behind that is really not democratic.






disclaimer: no offense intended, I know I am not an american citizen.

Well, don't make it proportional - that's for sure

SenorToenails wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

have you ever thought about the possibility that voter tournout would be higher if the electoral college was removed and replaced with a more direct voting method ? The way I see it people are simply tired of voting, because they don't feel that their votes actually mean anything.
Give them back their voting power, and voter turnout will be higher.

If that were true, then more people would vote for midterm senate and representative elections.  But they don't. 

I really think people just don't care enough to vote, which is pretty sad.

let's look at the stats then. For the 2000 general elections, voter tournout varied considerably between the states, with Minnesota coming in at 70 %, and Arizona at just 46,6%. Overall voter turnout was at 55,3%.

in 2004, Minnnesota again claimed the top spot, with 77,21%. This time, West Virginia was last, with an estimed 54,22% voter turnout. Overall turnout was 60,93%

sources: http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm and http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2000.htm

compared to other western nations, those numbers are quite low. check here for a comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turn … ifferences

The question I ask my self when looking at these numbers is, why are americans overall less willing to take part in their democratic process ?
the wikipedia article brings up some interesting aspects, one of them being voter registration, which is said to reduce voter turnout.

I am a strong supporter of compulsory voting, btw. With turnouts as low as 50%, how can any government claim legitimacy ?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Schuss, you just don't understand how little Americans give a shit. I would venture a guess that most of the people that don't vote don't even know what the Electoral College system is, because they just don't care.

I thought that too.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Schuss, you just don't understand how little Americans give a shit. I would venture a guess that most of the people that don't vote don't even know what the Electoral College system is, because they just don't care.

But then, and I have said this often lately, how come America as a nation is so assertive when it comes to spreading freedom and democracy around the globe ? I mean, if your own people have so little interest in the matter, how do you figure ?

The question to me is, are Americans unhappy with the system in general, or simply fed up with the way it is abused by career politicians and corporate interests ?

Turquoise wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Schuss, you just don't understand how little Americans give a shit. I would venture a guess that most of the people that don't vote don't even know what the Electoral College system is, because they just don't care.

But then, and I have said this often lately, how come America as a nation is so assertive when it comes to spreading freedom and democracy around the globe ? I mean, if your own people have so little interest in the matter, how do you figure ?

The question to me is, are Americans unhappy with the system in general, or simply fed up with the way it is abused by career politicians and corporate interests ?

A lot of Americans are definitely fed up with career politicians and corporate interests.

To answer the first part, however, most of the bullshit about us spreading democracy comes from politicians, not the average American.  I don't think the average American is really that interested in spreading democracy, but when politicians try to say that's why we're fighting in places like Iraq, it looks better than telling the truth -- "We're fighting in Iraq so that contractors can profit from it and so that we can maintain some order in the flow of oil."

Almost all war is primarily fought for economic reasons, but the "democracy" facade is a great selling point to the average idiot.  You won't find most Americans enthusiastic about spreading democracy until politicians prod them into believing that's what we're doing.

Beautiful.